Post by shaxper on May 24, 2002 10:33:25 GMT -5
While posting my last reply in the "Iago" thread, I realized something about Shakespeare's Machiavells that I had never caught before. In a sense, they do give reasons for doing what they're doing. The common understanding seems to be that Edmund did what he did because Bastards were evil, and Richard was deformed because it was a sign of evilness, but perhaps, since we're discussing how Shakespeare writes whole people, there is a human reasoning behind their actions.
Edmund outright complains that it is unfair that he is treated as an inferior to his brother. His father commits infidelity, yet brags about it to others and then introduces his son as the bastard as if it were Edmund's fault. Surely, the moment in which Edmund shows his wound to Gloucester, but Gloucester is too concerned with Edgar's betrayal to notice, is telling, as is Cornwall's symbolic adoption of Edmund, actually wanting to own the bastard when his own father does not.
Richard is tougher, probably since Shakespeare needed to villainize him so as to not threaten the Tudor right to rule, but his opening speach about not being made for courting and sportive tricks may not simply be an excuse. And, after all, it is implied that Richard was the one who led Edward to victory, since he is the one who killed the former king and prince. Edward, on the other hand, is sickly and (at least physically) unworthy/unqualified for the job. Surely gentle but ignorant Clarence is not much of a better candidate. Since Richard never has a scene in which he murders the princes, he doesn't really take his campaign farther than that. Yes, he is evil and enjoying his intrigue far too much, but there do seem to be some genuine motives behind him.
What do you guys think?
Edmund outright complains that it is unfair that he is treated as an inferior to his brother. His father commits infidelity, yet brags about it to others and then introduces his son as the bastard as if it were Edmund's fault. Surely, the moment in which Edmund shows his wound to Gloucester, but Gloucester is too concerned with Edgar's betrayal to notice, is telling, as is Cornwall's symbolic adoption of Edmund, actually wanting to own the bastard when his own father does not.
Richard is tougher, probably since Shakespeare needed to villainize him so as to not threaten the Tudor right to rule, but his opening speach about not being made for courting and sportive tricks may not simply be an excuse. And, after all, it is implied that Richard was the one who led Edward to victory, since he is the one who killed the former king and prince. Edward, on the other hand, is sickly and (at least physically) unworthy/unqualified for the job. Surely gentle but ignorant Clarence is not much of a better candidate. Since Richard never has a scene in which he murders the princes, he doesn't really take his campaign farther than that. Yes, he is evil and enjoying his intrigue far too much, but there do seem to be some genuine motives behind him.
What do you guys think?